Yes I looked hard. I looked absolutely everywhere. I have seen all corners of the web. Didn't find these pictures you were talking about. So where
are they?

Thank you for reporting in! Keep up the excellent work. The next step is to carryout your Yahoo and google searchs (you did try Yahoo didnt you?) for
the love of cheese and rice dont forget Yahoo!

Anyway like I was saying:
1. Thank you for reporting in.
2. keep up the excellent work..
3 for the love of cheese and rice dont forget Yahoo!

And..... dont stop. I feel your getting close. I myself would have pictures posted all over this place except my "n" key is messed up and I wont get
a new one for nearly another week or so. I mean try to google " ASA doctored photos" and see what you find it's down right aggravating. (so once
again, keep up the excellent work)

The prize may still be yours! prove my argument wrong and you will be the winner!
I have faith in you! Don't let everyone down. Others are monitoring our corespondence (I would assume) and are awaiting the results of your efforts.
As you are probably are already aware. Your reputation and credibility could possibly be compromised if you are unsuccesful in scouring the
"Worldwide interweb" and retrieving this information.
Dont loose heart, keep on the straight and narrow
and, Always look on the sunny side
Most importantly keep looking!

Originally posted by grubblesnert
I mean try to google " ASA doctored photos" and see what you find it's down right aggravating.

No hits there. Well plenty of hits but nothing that hasn't been debunked already.

The prize may still be yours! prove my argument wrong and you will be the winner!

Well actually it kinda goes the other way around. You made the claim so you need to provide the evidence for it. The burden of proof lies solely on
you. So untill you do that it's kinda hard to prove you wrong.

It's best to just ignore him/her completely no matter how much you want to 'bite'.
Let the civil people (on bother sides of the discussion) continue without their input.

This is a great piece of advice.
If no one would "bite" at my non-sense I would have nothing to respond to and subsequently be a non-issue.
Keep feeding me rediculous replies and I will follow the subject at hand twith rediculous responses all the way to its conclusion.
E.G. the whole "n" key thing...think about it. Rediculous!
Shall we conclude this everyone?

A suggestion throw away the spade, the whole is dug deep enough for you.
Just some freindly advice I think you should conclude it before you cannot crawl out from it

Just my two english pounds worth.

The bottom line is that all of the images that I have seen on those hoax websites that are purported to have masked areas, airbrushed, or other photo
effects done to them are NOT scans of the original raw images from NASA, but rather 2nd hand images (sometimes even 3rd or 4th hand images) taken from
other sources (and sometimes even from NASA.

If an image is not meant for scientific research, but rather meant for public consumption, of course the photo could have been "prettied-up", possibly
even by NASA. However, the raw unadulterated images are still publicly available from NASA, also.

A great example of this would be the image of Buzz Aldrin in this earlier post from ATS member St. Exupery: www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7/1/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by DJW001
The highest resolution photos at the time were from the Lunar Orbiter, which could resolve objects about 60 meters across. This team was able to
identify objects less than a meter large. Furthermore, the Apollo 17 traverse covered an area measured in kilometers. That is an extremely
large set to build, and an even harder set to light.

DJW, was 60 meters really the best resolution they had for Apollo 17?

Pete Conrad, February 6th 1971 ABC News, stated that his mission had maps with 1 meter resolution. Pete also says that Apollo 14 is working with maps
that are of 2 meter resolution. Is the commander of Apollo 12 right or wrong?

One of the difficult things here is, I think, is to get a, a, map before you go. We had some of the best photography of our landing site which
had a resolution of about 1 meter. Now the resolution they've been working from (refers to Apollo 14) has a resolution of about 2 meters."

Pete's quote is within the first 3 minutes of this video segment, a nice archive on youtube.

Originally posted by DJW001
The highest resolution photos at the time were from the Lunar Orbiter, which could resolve objects about 60 meters across. This team was able to
identify objects less than a meter large. Furthermore, the Apollo 17 traverse covered an area measured in kilometers. That is an extremely
large set to build, and an even harder set to light.

DJW, was 60 meters really the best resolution they had for Apollo 17?

Actually, except for a small corner (on the lower-left in this image - west is
up), the Lunar Orbiter missions did not image the Taurus-Littrow Valley at all. It was not even on the list of candidate landing sites until
early 1970 - after the Lunar Orbiter missions had
concluded.
Apollo 15 imaged the valley at medium resolution (~7m) using the Mapping (Metric) Camera...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Pete Conrad, February 6th 1971 ABC News, stated that his mission had maps with 1 meter resolution. Pete also says that Apollo 14 is working with maps
that are of 2 meter resolution. Is the commander of Apollo 12 right or wrong?

Conrad was right. Lunar Orbiter 1 and
Lunar Orbiter 3 took high-resolution (~1m) images of the area where Apollo 12
would land. Here is a zoomable version of 3137-h2b (south is up) that includes "Surveyor
Crater" half-way down and 1/4 in from the left. Surveyor 3 is barely visible as a white dot. You can compare this with last years
LROC image of the same area at 0.24m/pixel resolution (north is up). Surveyor Crater
and the Apollo 12 landing site are just over half-way down, in the middle.

All of the Lunar Orbiter images are available here. and Arizona State University is adding
versions with their zoomable interface here.

edit on 11-7-2012 by Saint Exupery because:
there weren't enough links. I had to add more. I could quit any time I want to. I just don't want to. It's not like I'm hooked or anything... *I*
don't have a problem. YOU'RE the one with the problem!

The surface plate from the Apollo 14 lunar simulator finally arrived, a bit tricky to ship safely. Very exciting…

From Lunar Legacies: “The plate is made of modeling paste over contoured fiberglass and contains an exact high-relief replica of the lunar surface
at the Apollo 14 landing site, the surface over which the simulator camera panned over to simulate a lunar surface approach and landing. Using various
lighting and filtering techniques, this plate was made to look like the actual landing site with the expected lighting conditions and view for the
astronauts looking out the LM simulator windows. The plate shows the landmark craters Doublet and Triplet used by the Apollo 14 crew to determine
their landing target. There are various small nicks and scuffs, mostly from the camera ramming the plate after a power blip in the LMS, and the plate
weighs about 10-12 pounds. This plate was one of several used in the Simulator for training, and is very possibly the only one salvaged after the
Apollo program.”

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.